If Senate shuts down, who's to blame?
Facing Bush judicial nominees, eager interest groups, and the 'nuclear option,' a divided Senate keeps raising the stakes.
As the Senate moves toward a showdown over the so-called nuclear option, risks and rewards confront both Republicans and Democrats, whatever the outcome.
Both sides concede that the move to lower the threshold required to end a filibuster from 60 votes to a simple majority could shut down the Senate. But it's not clear for how long, with what consequences, and who would be blamed if the Senate's work grinds to a halt.
When almost half of federal employees stopped work at noon on Nov. 14, 1995, President Clinton blamed the Republican Congress. Most Americans believed him. The GOP lost seats in the 1996 elections, and House Speaker Newt Gingrich later resigned.
A similar Armageddon scenario is shaping up in the Senate, as two of President Bush's most controversial judicial nominees await a floor vote.
For Republicans, it's a test of whether they can move the president's nominees through a Senate they now control with a margin of five votes. The judicial impasse has become a defining issue for Senate majority leader Bill Frist, who is weighing a presidential run in 2008.
For Democrats, the challenge is to hold the line on nominees they deem unqualified, while avoiding the label "obstructionist." Former Senate minority leader Tom Daschle lost his seat in the 2004 election after outside groups poured millions into his state to promote that view.
"The Senate is about to enter its own cold war," says Jennifer Duffy, Senate analyst for the Cook Political Report. "Democrats have done a very good job of backing [Senate majority leader Bill] Frist into a corner and keeping him there."
At the same time, powerful interest groups in both camps are fueling the conflict with ad campaigns, petition drives, and rallies outside the US Senate. Both sides accuse the other of being driven by "extremist groups."